A Dialogue on Anathemas [1]

by Nikolaos Mannes [2]

Author’s note: In view of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, which is read each year on the First Sunday of Lent, the Sunday of Orthodoxy, it behooves us to say a few words on the subject of anathemas (which are also known as "major excommunications"), lest the faithful be led astray into error. Of late, there has arisen the idea that the faithful ought indiscriminately to proclaim "anathemas" against new heretics who have appeared within the bosom of the Church. This view is reinforced by certain arguments that are presented below, along with refutations thereof, in the form of a dialogue. The interlocutors in our dialogue are "Zourlotes" [Ζουρλωτής, a Greek slang word for a “cackler," a “crackpot," or a religious “zealot without knowledge" (see Romans 10:2)] and "Philalethes" [Φιλαλήθης, meaning "a lover of truth"]. (Nota bene: Elucidations in brackets throughout this text are those of the translator.)

 

Z. I was very pleased to hear you anathematizing heretics the other day [i.e., on the Sunday of Orthodoxy]. You know, I heretofore took you for being rather lukewarm.

P. I did not anathematize them on my own. I simply expressed my agreement with the decisions of the Synods. [3] It is they that anathematized the heretics mentioned in the Synodikon.

Z. Yes, but every believer should on his own anathematize heretics. After all, in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy it is written: "He who does not say 'Anathema' to the heretics, let him be anathema." Therefore, he who does not anathematize heretics is anathematized!

P. The phrase, "He who does not say 'Anathema' to the heretics, let him be anathema," is nonexistent. It is not in the Synodikon or in any other text of any Synod or Saint.

Z. But my Elder told me so.

P. Well, look it up for yourself.

Z. Yes, but in the Proceedings of the Fifth (Ecumenical Synod, we read: "If anyone does not anathematize Arios, Eunomios, Macedonios, Apollinarios, Nestorios, Eutyches, and Origen, along with their impious writings, and all of the other heretics condemned and anathematized by the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and the aforementioned four Holy Synods, and those who were and are of like mind with the aforementioned heretics and who abide to the end in their impiety, let such a one be anathema!" [4] It is, therefore, of no importance whether the aforesaid phrase is nonexistent, since the meaning here, too, is the same: Whoever does not anathematize heretics is subject to anathema!

P. It is of importance, if we wish to serve the truth and not be Jesuitical and support the Machiavellian notion that “the end justifies the means.” You are not reading correctly the excerpt that you cite. Just take a look: "If anyone does not anathematize Arios, Eunomios, Macedonios, Apollinarios, Nestorios, Eutyches, and Origen, along with their impious writings, and all of the other heretics condemned and anathematized by the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and the aforementioned four Holy Synods, and those who were and are of like mind with the aforementioned heretics and who abide to the end in their impiety, let such a one be anathema!" Accordingly, a believer does not by himself anathematize whomever he regards a heretic; rather, he anathematizes those whom the Church has already anathematized through her Synods (that is, the heresiarchs and their impenitent followers), thereby expressing his agreement with their decisions.

Z. So are you telling me that the believer ought not to anathematize any of the contemporary heretics who have appeared in the Orthodox Church in the last hundred years or so?

P. That is not what I am saying. Listen to what one writer says about an anathema: "And who are you, that you lay claim to such authority and great power? For 'when the Son of man shall sit upon the throne of His glory..., He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left' (St. Matthew 25:31-33). How, then, did you obtain such great dignity, which was granted only to the community of the Apostles and those who truly became their successors in the strictest sense, full of Grace and power? And they, indeed, having kept the commandment precisely, cast heretics out of the Church as if they were gouging out their own right eye, which shows the great compassion and grief that they experienced at the excision of a vital member. For this is why Christ called him a right eye, indicating the compassion that ought to be felt by those casting him out." And further on we read: "We implore and adjure you to refrain from such an evil. For the man whom you have chosen to anathematize is either alive and present in this mortal life, or he is dead. Now if he is still alive, you commit impiety in cutting off one who is mutable and capable of changing from evil to good; but if he is dead, all the greater is your impiety." And he concludes: "We must anathematize heretical doctrines and refute impious teachings, from whomsoever we have received them, but show mercy to the men who advocate them and pray for their salvation."

Z. What obsequious heretic-lover wrote this?

P. St. John Chrysostomos, in his work entitled, "That We Should Not Anathematize Anyone, Living or Dead." [5]

Z. (Silence.)

P. We should, moreover, be sparing in our use of an anathema, not only concerning heretics whom the Church has not yet anathematized, but even concerning those who have been anathematized. In the Book of the Elders Barsanouphios and John we read....

Z. (Interrupting P.) I recognize only one Book, and I do not accept these new Elders whom the heretic-lovers regard as Saints.

P. I pity you, not for your ignorance, but because you want to have an opinion on matters about which you know nothing. The Elders Barsanouphios and John have been Saints of our Church for fifteen hundred years now, as they reposed around the sixth century. Listen, then, to their opinion on the issue of the anathematization of heretics, and especially of those already anathematized by the Church (such as Nestorios): "Question 700. 'But if someone tells me that I should anathematize Nestorios and heretics like him, should I anathematize them or not?' Response: 'That Nestorios and those like him are already condemned by the Church is a fact. However, do not be at all in haste to anathematize anyone yourself. For he who regards himself as a sinner ought to mourn for his sins, and nothing else. But neither should you judge those who anathematize someone, since each person is accountable for himself.' Question 701. 'But if on this basis he thinks that I am of the same mind as they, what am I to say to him?' Response: Tell him: 'Although it seems evident that they are worthy of anathema, yet I am more sinful than any man and fear lest, in judging another, I condemn myself. For if I anathematize even Satan himself, insofar as I do his works, I anathematize myself. For the Lord said: "If ye love me, keep my commandments." And the Apostle says: "Whoever does not love the Lord, let him be anathema." Therefore, he who does not keep His commandments does not love Him. And he who does not love Him is under anathema. Now, how can such a person anathematize others?" Tell him this, but if he persists in the same vein, for the sake of his conscience anathematize the heretic'. Question 702. 'If I do not know that he whom he tells me to anathematize is a heretic, what am I to do?' Response: Tell him: 'Brother, I do not know the mind of him about whom you are talking to me. Therefore, to anathematize one whom I do not know strikes me as worthy itself of condemnation. This is what I have to say to you: that I know of no other Faith than that of the three hundred and eighteen Holy Fathers [i.e., the Fathers of the First (Ecumenical Synod]. He who believes otherwise than this has cast himself into anathema.'" [6] Thus, if the Saints are so hesitant about one anathematizing even heretics anathematized by the Church, all the more would they reject anathematization by the faithful of those whom the Church has not yet anathematized.

Z. In other words, it is only a Synod of Bishops that has the authority, when there are newly manifest heretics, to anathematize their persons?

P. Precisely. And, as we have already said, not a Synod of just any Bishops, but a Synod of Bishops who, according to a strict standard, are successors of the Holy Apostles, that is, who are truly of an Orthodox mind.

Z. Yes, but I have read the following: "The right to condemn and anathematize any heresy or false teaching is not entrusted solely to Hierarchs, but is imposed as an obligation on all of the faithful of all ages and all times."

P. That is correct. But anathemas obtain to heresy and false teaching, not persons.

Z. That is, a Synod of Orthodox Bishops is responsible for anathematizing the persons who express these heresies? In that case, is the following statement erroneous: "The Apostle Paul, of course, has this authority to anathematize heretics of all ages, and the Fathers of the Seventh (Ecumenical Synod have the authority and the obligation to anathematize future heretics, as do even individual Fathers and the faithful People of God themselves, as the guardian of Orthodoxy"?

P. Yes, it is erroneous, as we have seen.

Z. Then why does St. Theodore the Studite write: "If anyone were not to anathematize every heretic in a timely manner, as needed, he would be on their side"?

P. Where is this written?

Z. I have the source: Phat. 34, 99,138.

P. What is "Phat."?

Z. [Well...,] I don’t know.

P. Did you not feel it necessary to find the source so as to read the entire text, in order that you might see what the Saint is saying? Were you content only with a single phrase that you were offered?

Z. (Silence.)

P. So, let us go and look at the text in "Phat." [7] To be precise, it is an epistle of the Saint to Pope Leo of Rome. In it, inter alia, St. Theodore rebuts the accusation that he accepts as Orthodox the heretics Barsanouphios, Isaiah, Dorotheos, and Dositheos, [8] whom he anathematizes in order to remove from the mind of Pope Leo any doubt about his Orthodoxy. The Saint writes: "We are Orthodox, even though in other respects we are sinners, Your Beatitude. Without making the slightest concession in the matter of the Apostolic Faith, we accept every (Ecumenical and local Synod that is recognized for its truth, along with the Holy Canons set forth therein, and we abhor and anathematize every heresy and heretic. Anathema to Barsanouphios, Isaiah, Dorotheos, and Dositheos, who were anathematized by St. Sophronios. And as well, everyone else of the same name as they, and who is a heretic, belonging to their heresy or to another, be he a Bishop or an ascetic, or whatever else, let him be anathematized. Indeed, if anyone were not to anathematize every heretic in a timely manner, as needed, he would be on his side. For we are free and clear of any heretical thinking." [9]

Z. Yes, but read what St. Theodore writes elsewhere: "Everyone who is Orthodox in every way potentially anathematizes every heretic, albeit not verbally." [10]

P. Quite so. Do you know what this means?

Z. Yes. It means that whoever is Orthodox in every respect should anathematize every heretic with all of his might!

P. Do you [actually] understand this?

Z. Yes.

P. Do you know ancient Greek?

Z. No, but to me the passage in question does not seem so difficult [for any Greek speaker],

P. It really is a pity that you have an opinion on matters of which you are ignorant.

Z. Then what does it mean?

P. It is translated [into Modern Greek] as follows: "Everyone who is Orthodox in every way potentially anathematizes every heretic, even if he does not do so in words."

Z. How then does he anathematize him if he does not do so in words?

P. First, by following the Orthodox Faith, which the heretic rejects and, on account of this rejection, is separated in essence from the Church, which has one Faith and not many. Secondly, by not having ecclesiastical communion with the heretic, even prior to a Synodal condemnation of the latter, that is, prior to his formal separation from the Church—provided, of course, that he remains unrepentant.

Z. Summing up what you have told me, and so that I might better understand, you are asserting that, as Orthodox, we ought to remain firm in the Orthodox Faith, not to have ecclesiastical communion with new heretics who have appeared in the Church, and to anathematize their heresies and false teachings, but not to anathematize them personally, since this is the task of a Synod of Bishops. Correct?

P. Correct.

Z. And if the Synod of Bishops does not do so, for how long are we to wait?

P. As long as is needed. In the case of criminals, which persons are competent to try them and sentence them by imposing penalties?

Z. Judges.

P. And if the court drags its feet, can the citizens do this?

Z. Yes, they can condemn them and impose penalties!

P. You are wrong! Lynch law (vigilantism) has no place in ecclesiastical law, nor is it consonant with the Orthodox ethos, as we have seen from the texts of the Holy Fathers.

Z. Very well. In other words, I suppose that you disagree with the new anathemas that some [11] have added to the Synodikon.

P. Of course I disagree with them! The addition of these anathemas is not only arbitrary but also anti-ecclesiastical.

Z. Why is it arbitrary?

P. The Synodikon is so called because it contains texts and anathemas of Synods. No one, even if he be a Bishop, can arbitrarily add whatever anathemas he wishes.

Z. And why is it anti-ecclesiastical?

P. I will explain this to you. In the first place, the authors of these new anathemas have chosen to anathematize the contemporary leaders of the Monophysites, the Roman Catholics, and the Protestants. But the Monophysites, Roman Catholics, and the Protestants were anathematized and separated from Orthodoxy centuries ago—the Monophysites after the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, which they rejected, and the Westerners (who were still united to the Church at that time [451]), after 1054, when they split off from the Church; as for the Protestants, they were anathematized and cut off by the Roman Catholics. In spite of this, these authors anathematize even their original leaders. In addition, certain sectarian Protestant groups, such as the Baptists, the Adventists, the Pentecostals, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, are anathematized. Finally, they anathematize the adherents of other religions, such as Jews and Muslims! But anathema means the separation from the Orthodox Church of those persons to whom it applies, and consequently it cannot be proclaimed against those who are already separated or were never part of Her! [12]

Moreover, the authors of these anathemas, usurping the authority possessed only by a Synod of Orthodox Bishops, undertake to anathematize various persons, such as those who teach "the pan-heresy of inter-Christian and interfaith syncretistic ecumenism," the "heresy of neo-Barlaamism," and the "post-Patristic, neo-Patristic, contextual, and post-canonical heresy" (usually without specifying what these heresies are); those who participate “in uncanonical joint prayers with heretics during the so-called 'Week of Prayer for Christian Unity'" (what about the other weeks and days?); all who preach that the heresies that have been cut off from the Orthodox Church are included in Her, calling them "imperfect churches" and saying that there is salvific Grace, valid Baptism, and efficacious sacerdotal Grace outside the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Orthodox Church" and that every Ecumenical Patriarch is "first without equal"; and, as well, the World Council of Churches and the "Synod of Crete." In short, they anathematize a prodigious number of persons, without having the competence to do so, since they are not a Synod! And you know what is worse? The principal authors of these new anathemas [often] commune with all those whom they anathematize! Do you see, then, that big words do not make one Orthodox, and [especially] if they are not matched by actions?

Z. Since you have tired me out, shall I tell you what I have understood from all that you have said to me?

P. I am listening.

Z. You are a friend or lackey of heretics, you do not have zeal for Orthodoxy, as I do, and you are going to Hell.

P. All right. I suppose, then, that we do not have anything else to say.

Z. A curse and an anathema on you!

P. May God bless you!

 

NOTES

1. This article appeared in the blog Kryfo-scholeio (Krufo-sxoleio.blogspot.gr), 27 February, 2018. Translation from the Greek by Archimandrite Patapios—Editor’s note.

2. Mr. Mannes is an educator and religious writer. He, his wife, and his children reside in Athens, Greece, and are faithful members of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Greece. Numerous of his articles have appeared in translation in Orthodox Tradition—Editor’s note.

3. During the reading of the Synodikon. it is customary for the faithful to express their agreement with the condemnation of the iconoclasts pronounced by the presiding clergyman (usually a Hierarch) by crying aloud, in concord, "Anathema," just as they show their approbation of the iconodules, when their memory is proclaimed eternal by the presiding clergyman, with the affirmation, "Eternal be their memory"—Translator’s note.

4. See A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), Vol. XIV, p. 314—Translator's note.

5. Patrologia Grceca, Vol. XLVIII, cols. 945-952. [See my English translation of the Saint’s text in "On Caution Regarding Anathematization: An Annotated Translation of St. John Chrysostomos' Homily, 'That We Should Not Anathematize the Living or the Dead,'" Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XVII, no. 1 (2000), pp. 14, 17. —Translator's note.]

6. Βίβλος Βαρσανουφίου καί Ίωάννου (Book of Barsanouphios and John) (Venice: 1816), p. 337. [The edition cited here is that of St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite, which differs slightly from the several other original Greek texts.]

7. A two-volume publication of the epistles of St. Theodore the Studite, edited by Georgios Phatouros [hence, "Phat."]: Epistolae Theodori Studitae (Berlin: 1991).

8. "Acephalite" Monophysites who were synodally anathematized by St. Sophronios of Jerusalem. The accusation against St. Theodore is based on a misunderstanding, since the Saint defended the Orthodoxy of certain holy Elders of that time who had the same names as the heretics. Among these Elders was the St. Barsanouphios cited above (see Patrologia Grceca, Vol. XCIX, col. 1816B). [Read further about this confusion of names in the translation of the Letters of St. Dorotheos of Gaza by the Most Reverend Chrysostomos, Abba Dorotheos of Gaza: His Letters and Various of His Sayings (Etna, CA: CTOS, 2018). In Appendix C, His Eminence translates a letter attributed to a disciple of St. Theodore the Studite, in which this anonymous disciple quotes a similar defense by the Saint of the Orthodoxy of St. Barsanouphios and others, including Abba Dorotheos.]

9. Phatouros, Epistolae Theodori Studitae, Vol. I, pp. 98-99.

10. Ibid., p. 142.

11. Mr. Mannes refers here to a specific author, while I have chosen simply to refer to that author's views as views espoused by numerous other individuals, as, in fact, they have been, rather than personalize his excellent commentary on the "new anathemas" under consideration—Translator’s note.

12. "Question 103. What is the meaning of the verse, 'If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maranatha'? Response. 'It means: Separate him from the Church and the faithful'" (St. Athanasios the Great, Patrologia Gneca, Vol. XXVIII, col. 760D). "There exists a penalty of anathema, canonically formulated by the Holy Fathers, which declares complete expulsion from the bosom of the Catholic Church of Christ" (Basil of Smyrna, Υπόμνημα περί Εκκλησιαστικού Άφορισμοϋ [A commentary on ecclesiastical excommunication] [Constantinople: 1897], p. 23). "Since excommunication is exclusion from ecclesiastical communion, it follows that it is imposed only on those belonging to the Church, and not on those outside Her" (Konstantinos I. Dyobouniotes, Περί Άφορισμοϋ [Concerning excommunication] [Athens: 1916], p. 46).

 

Source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. 35 (2018), No. 2, pp. 47-55.